The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Lolflatdisc on May 07, 2013, 07:16:37 AM
-
Here are two videos I made
This one showing you what a spotlight looks like on a flat disc.
Flat disc (http://tinypic.com/r/122m340/5)
Does that represent real life observations?
Or does the following video represent real life observations?
Sphere (http://tinypic.com/r/512cyd/5)
-
Well you've made the spotlight a bit small, but I don't feel dizzy so I suspect we aren't whirling around at 1000mph on a giant cosmic marble.
-
Well you've made the spotlight a bit small, but I don't feel dizzy so I suspect we aren't whirling around at 1000mph on a giant cosmic marble.
Really, Thork? Really? Why would you stoop down to Skeptimatic and TrueMyth's intelligence? Why? You understand how it works, and you know that we should not feel Earths motion. So stop it.
-
They could both work.
-
They could both work.
Explain please. The first video of the flat disc shows there can not be any seasons, while we do experience and observe seasons in real life. The second videos shows it does have seasons.
-
It doesn't allow for seasons because your animation doesn't represent the sun in FET.
-
It doesn't allow for seasons because your animation doesn't represent the sun in FET.
So what is the sun in FET? A spotlight, a sphere, a magic wand?
-
It depends who you ask, but most commonly a sphere.
-
It depends who you ask, but most commonly a sphere.
So the flat earth theory cannot even produce a straight forward answer on that part? Anyway so how come the sun is a sphere and the earth can not?
-
It's commonly known that the sun is a Quark Gluon plasma
-
It depends who you ask, but most commonly a sphere.
So the flat earth theory cannot even produce a straight forward answer on that part? Anyway so how come the sun is a sphere and the earth can not?
No, just like how there are different theories about what makes up matter or how the universe started etc.
Wuh...?
Well, it may have something to do with the sun not being the earth.
-
It depends who you ask, but most commonly a sphere.
So the flat earth theory cannot even produce a straight forward answer on that part? Anyway so how come the sun is a sphere and the earth can not?
No, just like how there are different theories about what makes up matter or how the universe started etc.
Wuh...
Well, it may have something to do with the sun not being the earth.
It is true scientists have not yet found a theory or an answer to how the universe has started and what matter makes up the universe. Though they have found evidence the universe is expanding. So a logic explanation is that if you reverse time you will get to a point all was once together, in a single point. Again, they still have no answers how the universe started, but that does not take away credibility from the debate about a flat or a spherical earth.
Though there could be different FE theories, the most plausible should be backed up by real world observations. Scientists do the same, they go forward by following the theory they can back up. A similar setting should yield similar results.
Now with the FE theory, you haven't gone into explaining why the sun and the moon could be spheres and the earth cannot. You said the earth is different. Yet the moon and the sun are both different from each other as well and yet we do not see two different shapes like a box shaped moon and a spherical sun. What is the reason behind the earth to be a flat disc?
-
Any answers?
-
Though there could be different FE theories, the most plausible should be backed up by real world observations. Scientists do the same, they go forward by following the theory they can back up. A similar setting should yield similar results.
Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.
-
Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.
Apparently not, because when you look at my video of a 'spotlight' like sun, shining on a flat disc, rotating around above the earth, the south will always know darkness. Yet in real world observations, the south receives 24h of sunlight when it is winter in north. Only in my second video, of a spherical earth, tilted on its axis, this can be achieved.
-
Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.
Apparently not, because when you look at my video of a 'spotlight' like sun, shining on a flat disc, rotating around above the earth, the south will always know darkness. Yet in real world observations, the south receives 24h of sunlight when it is winter in north. Only in my second video, of a spherical earth, tilted on its axis, this can be achieved.
Just because you assume that the south should be in darkness, it does not really prove anything. If you go far enough past the known Earth, there may actually be perpetual darkness.
-
Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.
Apparently not, because when you look at my video of a 'spotlight' like sun, shining on a flat disc, rotating around above the earth, the south will always know darkness. Yet in real world observations, the south receives 24h of sunlight when it is winter in north. Only in my second video, of a spherical earth, tilted on its axis, this can be achieved.
You will get wordy explanations from FErs that can be summarized like this:
(http://img.pandawhale.com/post-12472-Magic-gifs-y3nT.gif)
Aside from the jokes, the sun should never be lower than 7 degrees above our line of sight. Ever. In FE, the sun is 3000 miles up, and the diameter of Earth is approx. 24,000 miles.
Work the math, pretty simple.
FE people either use the most messed up version of perspective you can think of, or they insert unobserved, untestable bendy light (Electromagnetic Acceleration). Both of which are incorrect.
-
Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.
Apparently not, because when you look at my video of a 'spotlight' like sun, shining on a flat disc, rotating around above the earth, the south will always know darkness. Yet in real world observations, the south receives 24h of sunlight when it is winter in north. Only in my second video, of a spherical earth, tilted on its axis, this can be achieved.
Just because you assume that the south should be in darkness, it does not really prove anything. If you go far enough past the known Earth, there may actually be perpetual darkness.
Please note I say 24h of sunlight. In no model of the FET the south can have 24h of sunlight, without affecting the north. I do not assume it is, but these are real world observations. When it is winter in north, the days are short, the nights are long. In south the days are long the nights are short. In summer, the days in north are long, the nights are short and in south the days are short and the nights are long. This can in no possible way be achieved using the flat earth disc model, unless you have the answers? I made the videos for you to see, unless you have another answer, the only way the seasons can be achieved is as if the earth is a sphere. This is demonstrated in the second video, and what do you know, the real world observations match with that video.
-
It's because of aetheric eyewalls
-
Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.
Apparently not, because when you look at my video of a 'spotlight' like sun, shining on a flat disc, rotating around above the earth, the south will always know darkness. Yet in real world observations, the south receives 24h of sunlight when it is winter in north. Only in my second video, of a spherical earth, tilted on its axis, this can be achieved.
You will get wordy explanations from FErs that can be summarized like this:
(http://img.pandawhale.com/post-12472-Magic-gifs-y3nT.gif)
Aside from the jokes, the sun should never be lower than 7 degrees above our line of sight. Ever. In FE, the sun is 3000 miles up, and the diameter of Earth is approx. 24,000 miles.
Work the math, pretty simple.
FE people either use the most messed up version of perspective you can think of, or they insert unobserved, untestable bendy light (Electromagnetic Acceleration). Both of which are incorrect.
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
-
Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.
Apparently not, because when you look at my video of a 'spotlight' like sun, shining on a flat disc, rotating around above the earth, the south will always know darkness. Yet in real world observations, the south receives 24h of sunlight when it is winter in north. Only in my second video, of a spherical earth, tilted on its axis, this can be achieved.
You will get wordy explanations from FErs that can be summarized like this:
(http://img.pandawhale.com/post-12472-Magic-gifs-y3nT.gif)
Aside from the jokes, the sun should never be lower than 7 degrees above our line of sight. Ever. In FE, the sun is 3000 miles up, and the diameter of Earth is approx. 24,000 miles.
Work the math, pretty simple.
FE people either use the most messed up version of perspective you can think of, or they insert unobserved, untestable bendy light (Electromagnetic Acceleration). Both of which are incorrect.
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
The Sun being even closer doesn't really help your position. Saying you don't know doesn't bolster your argument either. Anyway, why should it be so hard to measure?
-
Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.
Apparently not, because when you look at my video of a 'spotlight' like sun, shining on a flat disc, rotating around above the earth, the south will always know darkness. Yet in real world observations, the south receives 24h of sunlight when it is winter in north. Only in my second video, of a spherical earth, tilted on its axis, this can be achieved.
You will get wordy explanations from FErs that can be summarized like this:
(http://img.pandawhale.com/post-12472-Magic-gifs-y3nT.gif)
Aside from the jokes, the sun should never be lower than 7 degrees above our line of sight. Ever. In FE, the sun is 3000 miles up, and the diameter of Earth is approx. 24,000 miles.
Work the math, pretty simple.
FE people either use the most messed up version of perspective you can think of, or they insert unobserved, untestable bendy light (Electromagnetic Acceleration). Both of which are incorrect.
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
The Sun being even closer doesn't really help your position. Saying you don't know doesn't bolster your argument either. Anyway, why should it be so hard to measure?
1. In what way?
2. I wasn't trying to bolster my argument, necessarily. I was just saying we don't know, so... yeah.
We also do not know the exact size of the sun.
-
Everything in FET is backed by real world observations.
Apparently not, because when you look at my video of a 'spotlight' like sun, shining on a flat disc, rotating around above the earth, the south will always know darkness. Yet in real world observations, the south receives 24h of sunlight when it is winter in north. Only in my second video, of a spherical earth, tilted on its axis, this can be achieved.
You will get wordy explanations from FErs that can be summarized like this:
(http://img.pandawhale.com/post-12472-Magic-gifs-y3nT.gif)
Aside from the jokes, the sun should never be lower than 7 degrees above our line of sight. Ever. In FE, the sun is 3000 miles up, and the diameter of Earth is approx. 24,000 miles.
Work the math, pretty simple.
FE people either use the most messed up version of perspective you can think of, or they insert unobserved, untestable bendy light (Electromagnetic Acceleration). Both of which are incorrect.
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
The Sun being even closer doesn't really help your position. Saying you don't know doesn't bolster your argument either. Anyway, why should it be so hard to measure?
1. In what way?
2. I wasn't trying to bolster my argument, necessarily. I was just saying we don't know, so... yeah.
We also do not know the exact size of the sun.
One of the problems with a 3000 mile high Sun is that it's over twice as far away at sunset as at noon. This means you'd expect it to look much smaller at sunset and sunrise and would appear to change size during the day. At a height of 700 miles it's over 8 times as far away between sunset and noon, so the size change would be even more apparent.
And I'm saying you (the FES anyway) should know the distance to the Sun. It would be easy enough to measure, you just need to measure some shadow angles and do some basic trig. In fact, Eratosthenes did this measurement already, but assumed a round Earth and calculated the circumference. You can take the same measurement and, assuming a flat Earth, get an approximate distance to the Sun.
-
It's because of aetheric eyewalls
Go ahead, explain yourself.
-
Except you only get a consistent answer at 45 and 90 degrees of elevation using trig on a FE.
-
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.
Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?
I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.
-
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.
Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?
I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.
I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.
-
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.
Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?
I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.
I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.
It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space. This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space. The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums. However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.
-
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.
Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?
I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.
I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.
It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space. This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space. The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums. However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.
I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory. The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor. He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.
-
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.
Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?
I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.
I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.
It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space. This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space. The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums. However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.
I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory. The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor. He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.
You may very well be right. I'm just reliving the disaster of Sandokhan from a few days ago.
-
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.
Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?
I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.
I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.
It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space. This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space. The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums. However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.
Thanks for telling me.
Tausami, y u no respond >o<
-
Tausami, y u no respond >o<
Probably because he has a life and does not just sit on the computer waiting for noobs to ask questions. Just my guess.
-
Tausami, y u no respond >o<
Probably because he has a life and does not just sit on the computer waiting for noobs to ask questions. Just my guess.
It's a Thursday night, of course I have nothing to do. Plus he apparently never responds to aetheric questions.
-
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.
Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?
I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.
I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.
It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space. This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space. The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums. However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.
I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory. The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor. He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.
You may very well be right. I'm just reliving the disaster of Sandokhan from a few days ago.
Lol, "lest we forget".
Funny how he disappeared so suddenly, wonder if he is off doing more "reasearch".
I wonder about the eyewalls myself. Does sound like something that would get tossed out by a FE'r who gets cornered. Some relation to bendy light maybe?
-
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.
Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?
I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.
I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.
It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space. This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space. The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums. However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.
I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory. The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor. He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.
You may very well be right. I'm just reliving the disaster of Sandokhan from a few days ago.
Lol, "lest we forget".
Funny how he disappeared so suddenly, wonder if he is off doing more "reasearch".
I wonder about the eyewalls myself. Does sound like something that would get tossed out by a FE'r who gets cornered. Some relation to bendy light maybe?
Although, how come bendy light always gets dissed? I've read on it a little and I see little wrong with it.
-
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.
Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?
I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.
I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.
It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space. This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space. The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums. However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.
I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory. The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor. He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.
You may very well be right. I'm just reliving the disaster of Sandokhan from a few days ago.
Lol, "lest we forget".
Funny how he disappeared so suddenly, wonder if he is off doing more "reasearch".
I wonder about the eyewalls myself. Does sound like something that would get tossed out by a FE'r who gets cornered. Some relation to bendy light maybe?
Although, how come bendy light always gets dissed? I've read on it a little and I see little wrong with it.
Maybe the fact that it is so inconsistent in the way it affects electromagnetic waves and the fact that the constant that is needed to make it work has not and cannot be discovered?
-
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.
Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?
I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.
I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.
It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space. This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space. The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums. However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.
I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory. The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor. He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.
You may very well be right. I'm just reliving the disaster of Sandokhan from a few days ago.
Lol, "lest we forget".
Funny how he disappeared so suddenly, wonder if he is off doing more "reasearch".
I wonder about the eyewalls myself. Does sound like something that would get tossed out by a FE'r who gets cornered. Some relation to bendy light maybe?
Although, how come bendy light always gets dissed? I've read on it a little and I see little wrong with it.
Maybe the fact that it is so inconsistent in the way it affects electromagnetic waves and the fact that the constant that is needed to make it work has not and cannot be discovered?
The Bible is inconsistent. God cannot be nor has been discovered. Their are still well over 2 billion people that are Christians.
-
Bendy light gets dissed as an explanation because it cannot accurately explain anything and there is no evidence for its existence. It is a terrible explanation.
Just because 2 billion people believe in something, does not make it true or a good idea.
-
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.
Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?
I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.
I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.
It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space. This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space. The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums. However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.
I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory. The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor. He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.
You may very well be right. I'm just reliving the disaster of Sandokhan from a few days ago.
Lol, "lest we forget".
Funny how he disappeared so suddenly, wonder if he is off doing more "reasearch".
I wonder about the eyewalls myself. Does sound like something that would get tossed out by a FE'r who gets cornered. Some relation to bendy light maybe?
Although, how come bendy light always gets dissed? I've read on it a little and I see little wrong with it.
Maybe the fact that it is so inconsistent in the way it affects electromagnetic waves and the fact that the constant that is needed to make it work has not and cannot be discovered?
The Bible is inconsistent. God cannot be nor has been discovered. Their are still well over 2 billion people that are Christians.
Religion is a terrible analogy to use in relation to science. God cannot be proven or disproven because there is inherently no direct evidence. Bendy light, however, has a direct effect on the world if it is to be believed, therefore it should be able to be discovered and explained.
-
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.
Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?
I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.
I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.
It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space. This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space. The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums. However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.
I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory. The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor. He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.
You may very well be right. I'm just reliving the disaster of Sandokhan from a few days ago.
Lol, "lest we forget".
Funny how he disappeared so suddenly, wonder if he is off doing more "reasearch".
I wonder about the eyewalls myself. Does sound like something that would get tossed out by a FE'r who gets cornered. Some relation to bendy light maybe?
Although, how come bendy light always gets dissed? I've read on it a little and I see little wrong with it.
Maybe the fact that it is so inconsistent in the way it affects electromagnetic waves and the fact that the constant that is needed to make it work has not and cannot be discovered?
The Bible is inconsistent. God cannot be nor has been discovered. Their are still well over 2 billion people that are Christians.
Religion is a terrible analogy to use in relation to science. God cannot be proven or disproven because there is inherently no direct evidence. Bendy light, however, has a direct effect on the world if it is to be believed, therefore it should be able to be discovered and explained.
God supposedly intervenes in everyone's daily life. Their is no way to discover him. Thus he cannot be explained.
-
But it can't be said whether it was God or a natural coincidental occurrence, thus he cannot be proven or disproven (I'm not going to get more into an argument involving God than that). No matter how light would bend, it would have to bend iin a predictable fashion. It doesn't matter what bends it because it still must bend. Since it must bend and would need to be predictable in order to match observations, it should be fairly simple to find the equation for it, but it's not easy and contains a constant that cannot be found.
-
Bendy light gets dissed as an explanation because it cannot accurately explain anything and there is no evidence for its existence. It is a terrible explanation.
Just because a phenomenon has not been fully studied, that does not mean that it is not real.
-
Bendy light gets dissed as an explanation because it cannot accurately explain anything and there is no evidence for its existence. It is a terrible explanation.
Just because a phenomenon has not been fully studied, that does not mean that it is not real.
I never said it was not real. More important though is I wonder how you are qualifying being studied? There is no evidence for it, and there is no theoretical framework to proceed from either. There is a hypothesis and an equation that may be nothing more than Parsifal's baseless musings (at least that is how it appears on its face). What precisely, in the domain of Bendy Light is being studied and how?
To my original point, Bendy Light is incapable of explaining anything at this point and to offer it as such is disingenuous.
-
Bendy light gets dissed as an explanation because it cannot accurately explain anything and there is no evidence for its existence. It is a terrible explanation.
Just because a phenomenon has not been fully studied, that does not mean that it is not real.
I never said it was not real. More important though is I wonder how you are qualifying being studied? There is no evidence for it, and there is no theoretical framework to proceed from either. There is a hypothesis and an equation that may be nothing more than Parsifal's baseless musings (at least that is how it appears on its face). What precisely, in the domain of Bendy Light is being studied and how?
To my original point, Bendy Light is incapable of explaining anything at this point and to offer it as such is disingenuous.
We can observe its affects. It is no more implausible than Gravity. We see the affects and zetetically come up with the cause.
It has not been fully studied, but you can not dismiss it just because we can not tell you exactly how it works.
-
Bendy light gets dissed as an explanation because it cannot accurately explain anything and there is no evidence for its existence. It is a terrible explanation.
Just because a phenomenon has not been fully studied, that does not mean that it is not real.
I never said it was not real. More important though is I wonder how you are qualifying being studied? There is no evidence for it, and there is no theoretical framework to proceed from either. There is a hypothesis and an equation that may be nothing more than Parsifal's baseless musings (at least that is how it appears on its face). What precisely, in the domain of Bendy Light is being studied and how?
To my original point, Bendy Light is incapable of explaining anything at this point and to offer it as such is disingenuous.
We can observe its affects. It is no more implausible than Gravity. We see the affects and zetetically come up with the cause.
It has not been fully studied, but you can not dismiss it just because we can not tell you exactly how it works.
It is just a hypothesis right now. It has no theoretical or observational foundation whatsoever. Parsifal said on this site he does not even recall how he arrived at the equation and his notes are a mess. It is not a theory and you have no reason to believe that it should pertain to the natural world other than your own need for it to be true because otherwise the FE hypothesis dies pretty quickly.
Gravity on the other hand works perfectly well as a theory. It was used to predict the existence of Jupiter and the bending of light around stars. It has successfully modeled binary star systems and is integral to accurate modeling of the expansion of the universe.
I do understand the concerns about gravity from your perspective, but to not apply the same standard to your own hypothesis, which cannot even predict how much a beam of light should bend is, again, disingenuous.
-
Bendy light gets dissed as an explanation because it cannot accurately explain anything and there is no evidence for its existence. It is a terrible explanation.
Just because a phenomenon has not been fully studied, that does not mean that it is not real.
I never said it was not real. More important though is I wonder how you are qualifying being studied? There is no evidence for it, and there is no theoretical framework to proceed from either. There is a hypothesis and an equation that may be nothing more than Parsifal's baseless musings (at least that is how it appears on its face). What precisely, in the domain of Bendy Light is being studied and how?
To my original point, Bendy Light is incapable of explaining anything at this point and to offer it as such is disingenuous.
We can observe its affects. It is no more implausible than Gravity. We see the affects and zetetically come up with the cause.
It has not been fully studied, but you can not dismiss it just because we can not tell you exactly how it works.
It is just a hypothesis right now. It has no theoretical or observational foundation whatsoever. Parsifal said on this site he does not even recall how he arrived at the equation and his notes are a mess. It is not a theory and you have no reason to believe that it should pertain to the natural world other than your own need for it to be true because otherwise the FE hypothesis dies pretty quickly.
Gravity on the other hand works perfectly well as a theory. It was used to predict the existence of Jupiter and the bending of light around stars. It has successfully modeled binary star systems and is integral to accurate modeling of the expansion of the universe.
I do understand the concerns about gravity from your perspective, but to not apply the same standard to your own hypothesis, which cannot even predict how much a beam of light should bend is, again, disingenuous.
This is not my theory. Please quote me if I said otherwise.
We only know of Gravity from observing things. We can not explain it, nor can we determine its cause. We see stuff happen and assume it is Gravity that caused it. How is this any different from bendy light?
-
Bendy light gets dissed as an explanation because it cannot accurately explain anything and there is no evidence for its existence. It is a terrible explanation.
Just because a phenomenon has not been fully studied, that does not mean that it is not real.
I never said it was not real. More important though is I wonder how you are qualifying being studied? There is no evidence for it, and there is no theoretical framework to proceed from either. There is a hypothesis and an equation that may be nothing more than Parsifal's baseless musings (at least that is how it appears on its face). What precisely, in the domain of Bendy Light is being studied and how?
To my original point, Bendy Light is incapable of explaining anything at this point and to offer it as such is disingenuous.
We can observe its affects. It is no more implausible than Gravity. We see the affects and zetetically come up with the cause.
It has not been fully studied, but you can not dismiss it just because we can not tell you exactly how it works.
It is just a hypothesis right now. It has no theoretical or observational foundation whatsoever. Parsifal said on this site he does not even recall how he arrived at the equation and his notes are a mess. It is not a theory and you have no reason to believe that it should pertain to the natural world other than your own need for it to be true because otherwise the FE hypothesis dies pretty quickly.
Gravity on the other hand works perfectly well as a theory. It was used to predict the existence of Jupiter and the bending of light around stars. It has successfully modeled binary star systems and is integral to accurate modeling of the expansion of the universe.
I do understand the concerns about gravity from your perspective, but to not apply the same standard to your own hypothesis, which cannot even predict how much a beam of light should bend is, again, disingenuous.
This is not my theory. Please quote me if I said otherwise.
We only know of Gravity from observing things. We can not explain it, nor can we determine its cause. We see stuff happen and assume it is Gravity that caused it. How is this any different from bendy light?
We can't explain what the cause is, but we can explain the effect. The effect of bendy light cannot be explained. Major difference.
-
Bendy light gets dissed as an explanation because it cannot accurately explain anything and there is no evidence for its existence. It is a terrible explanation.
Just because a phenomenon has not been fully studied, that does not mean that it is not real.
I never said it was not real. More important though is I wonder how you are qualifying being studied? There is no evidence for it, and there is no theoretical framework to proceed from either. There is a hypothesis and an equation that may be nothing more than Parsifal's baseless musings (at least that is how it appears on its face). What precisely, in the domain of Bendy Light is being studied and how?
To my original point, Bendy Light is incapable of explaining anything at this point and to offer it as such is disingenuous.
We can observe its affects. It is no more implausible than Gravity. We see the affects and zetetically come up with the cause.
It has not been fully studied, but you can not dismiss it just because we can not tell you exactly how it works.
It is just a hypothesis right now. It has no theoretical or observational foundation whatsoever. Parsifal said on this site he does not even recall how he arrived at the equation and his notes are a mess. It is not a theory and you have no reason to believe that it should pertain to the natural world other than your own need for it to be true because otherwise the FE hypothesis dies pretty quickly.
Gravity on the other hand works perfectly well as a theory. It was used to predict the existence of Jupiter and the bending of light around stars. It has successfully modeled binary star systems and is integral to accurate modeling of the expansion of the universe.
I do understand the concerns about gravity from your perspective, but to not apply the same standard to your own hypothesis, which cannot even predict how much a beam of light should bend is, again, disingenuous.
This is not my theory. Please quote me if I said otherwise.
We only know of Gravity from observing things. We can not explain it, nor can we determine its cause. We see stuff happen and assume it is Gravity that caused it. How is this any different from bendy light?
Apologies if I implied that you concocted the theory, that was not my thought, however by championing it you are taking some ownership in the value of the idea. No big deal really, it's the Internet.
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity does explain gravity and gives a hypothesis of its cause. It is also capable of making experimentally testable predictions. Bendy Light does none of these. That's the difference.
EDIT: As a point of fact, you do not observe light bending unless due to refraction. What you observe is light travelling straight over an apparently curved surface. The FE hypothesis requires this effect to be true. To say otherwise makes Bendy Light a tautology. Gravity on the other hand can be observed directly in the behavior of the celestial bodies, the Cavendish Experiment, etc...
-
We can't explain what the cause is, but we can explain the effect. The effect of bendy light cannot be explained. Major difference.
Incorrect. The effect would be that light doe not travel in perfectly straight lines under certain circumstances. We do not fully understand the cause, but we can observe the effect, if bendy light does exist.
-
Apologies if I implied that you concocted the theory, that was not my thought, however by championing it you are taking some ownership in the value of the idea. No big deal really, it's the Internet.
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity does explain gravity and gives a hypothesis of its cause. It is also capable of making experimentally testable predictions. Bendy Light does none of these. That's the difference.
EDIT: As a point of fact, you do not observe light bending unless due to refraction. What you observe is light travelling straight over an apparently curved surface. The FE hypothesis requires this effect to be true. To say otherwise makes Bendy Light a tautology. Gravity on the other hand can be observed directly in the behavior of the celestial bodies, the Cavendish Experiment, etc...
I did not champion for bendy light. I simply said don't dismiss it just because it is not fully understood.
-
We can't explain what the cause is, but we can explain the effect. The effect of bendy light cannot be explained. Major difference.
Incorrect. The effect would be that light doe not travel in perfectly straight lines under certain circumstances. We do not fully understand the cause, but we can observe the effect, if bendy light does exist.
But the effect cannot be quantitatively explained as this effect is widely inconsistent. Gravity has quantitatively been explained and has been used in cosmological predictions, like Neptune.
-
We can't explain what the cause is, but we can explain the effect. The effect of bendy light cannot be explained. Major difference.
Incorrect. The effect would be that light doe not travel in perfectly straight lines under certain circumstances. We do not fully understand the cause, but we can observe the effect, if bendy light does exist.
But the effect cannot be quantitatively explained as this effect is widely inconsistent. Gravity has quantitatively been explained and has been used in cosmological predictions, like Neptune.
Just because I can not quantify the phenomena in an equation, that does not mean that it can't be quantified entirely. Like I said, it is still being studied. Perhaps one day, we will know much more about the mechanics of "bendy light". Until then, or until it can be proved not to exist, we can't just throw the theory out because an equally unknown phenomena theorized to be gravity has more backing.
-
We can't explain what the cause is, but we can explain the effect. The effect of bendy light cannot be explained. Major difference.
Incorrect. The effect would be that light doe not travel in perfectly straight lines under certain circumstances. We do not fully understand the cause, but we can observe the effect, if bendy light does exist.
But the effect cannot be quantitatively explained as this effect is widely inconsistent. Gravity has quantitatively been explained and has been used in cosmological predictions, like Neptune.
Just because I can not quantify the phenomena in an equation, that does not mean that it can't be quantified entirely. Like I said, it is still being studied. Perhaps one day, we will know much more about the mechanics of "bendy light". Until then, or until it can be proved not to exist, we can't just throw the theory out because an equally unknown phenomena theorized to be gravity has more backing.
It is far from equally unknown.
-
We can't explain what the cause is, but we can explain the effect. The effect of bendy light cannot be explained. Major difference.
Incorrect. The effect would be that light doe not travel in perfectly straight lines under certain circumstances. We do not fully understand the cause, but we can observe the effect, if bendy light does exist.
But the effect cannot be quantitatively explained as this effect is widely inconsistent. Gravity has quantitatively been explained and has been used in cosmological predictions, like Neptune.
Just because I can not quantify the phenomena in an equation, that does not mean that it can't be quantified entirely. Like I said, it is still being studied. Perhaps one day, we will know much more about the mechanics of "bendy light". Until then, or until it can be proved not to exist, we can't just throw the theory out because an equally unknown phenomena theorized to be gravity has more backing.
There's no way you can possibly put an untested hypothesis like bendy light and the completely descriptive and predictive theory of gravity on an equal footing. That makes absolutely no sense.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444913060125542.html#articleTabs%3Darticle (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444913060125542.html#articleTabs%3Darticle)
Einstein's theory (of gravity!) proven right - AGAIN
-
There's no way you can possibly put an untested hypothesis like bendy light and the completely descriptive and predictive theory of gravity on an equal footing. That makes absolutely no sense.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444913060125542.html#articleTabs%3Darticle (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444913060125542.html#articleTabs%3Darticle)
Einstein's theory (of gravity!) proven right - AGAIN
Gravity is a theory. It has not been proven, and no one knows how it works, if it does. We can see the effects of something that people call gravity. There are many theories about the why it works, and not all of them can be right. Please don't pretend that Gravity has been proven.
-
There's no way you can possibly put an untested hypothesis like bendy light and the completely descriptive and predictive theory of gravity on an equal footing. That makes absolutely no sense.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444913060125542.html#articleTabs%3Darticle (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444913060125542.html#articleTabs%3Darticle)
Einstein's theory (of gravity!) proven right - AGAIN
Gravity is a theory. It has not been proven, and no one knows how it works, if it does. We can see the effects of something that people call gravity. There are many theories about the why it works, and not all of them can be right. Please don't pretend that Gravity has been proven.
Do not equivocate on the word theory. In science the word theory pertains to an area of knowledge. People, notably Creationists, throw that word out to mean, postulate or hypothesis. This is not what the theories of gravity, electromagnetism, germ or evolution are. Gravity has been proven time and time again.
-
There's no way you can possibly put an untested hypothesis like bendy light and the completely descriptive and predictive theory of gravity on an equal footing. That makes absolutely no sense.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444913060125542.html#articleTabs%3Darticle (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444913060125542.html#articleTabs%3Darticle)
Einstein's theory (of gravity!) proven right - AGAIN
Gravity is a theory. It has not been proven, and no one knows how it works, if it does. We can see the effects of something that people call gravity. There are many theories about the why it works, and not all of them can be right. Please don't pretend that Gravity has been proven.
The strength of a theory lies in how well it both explains phenomena and makes successful, specific predictions. The article shows how General Relativity predicted the orbital decay of a binary star system down to the microsecond. I'd say we definitely know it "works".
Not sure what you mean by "many theories about why it works" - General Relativity has the best result so far. Newton's theory is still a good enough approximation that it's equations are still used today when extreme precision is not required. As to the ultimate "why" of it, you can apply that to anything. Why does magnetism work - well, in magnets the spins of electrons are lined up, creating a magnetic field. Why is that? Well, electrons behave like tiny magnets themselves, and the fields add up? Why is that? Errr... it has to do with quantum mechanics. That's about as far as I can go. A little research may take you farther down. A brilliant physicist might have yet a deeper understanding. But at the bottom of it, things just behave the way we observe them to. You can't ask why any further because there's no explanation in terms of something else you already understand.
So, just because you don't fully understand it, and just because a full understanding (whatever that might mean) may not be possible, doesn't mean the theory doesn't work. And it definitely doesn't give someone else's pet theory (which in the case of bendy light is just an untested hypothesis) an equal footing with the accepted theory.
-
There's no way you can possibly put an untested hypothesis like bendy light and the completely descriptive and predictive theory of gravity on an equal footing. That makes absolutely no sense.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444913060125542.html#articleTabs%3Darticle (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444913060125542.html#articleTabs%3Darticle)
Einstein's theory (of gravity!) proven right - AGAIN
Gravity is a theory. It has not been proven, and no one knows how it works, if it does. We can see the effects of something that people call gravity. There are many theories about the why it works, and not all of them can be right. Please don't pretend that Gravity has been proven.
The strength of a theory lies in how well it both explains phenomena and makes successful, specific predictions. The article shows how General Relativity predicted the orbital decay of a binary star system down to the microsecond. I'd say we definitely know it "works".
Not sure what you mean by "many theories about why it works" - General Relativity has the best result so far. Newton's theory is still a good enough approximation that it's equations are still used today when extreme precision is not required. As to the ultimate "why" of it, you can apply that to anything. Why does magnetism work - well, in magnets the spins of electrons are lined up, creating a magnetic field. Why is that? Well, electrons behave like tiny magnets themselves, and the fields add up? Why is that? Errr... it has to do with quantum mechanics. That's about as far as I can go. A little research may take you farther down. A brilliant physicist might have yet a deeper understanding. But at the bottom of it, things just behave the way we observe them to. You can't ask why any further because there's no explanation in terms of something else you already understand.
So, just because you don't fully understand it, and just because a full understanding (whatever that might mean) may not be possible, doesn't mean the theory doesn't work. And it definitely doesn't give someone else's pet theory (which in the case of bendy light is just an untested hypothesis) an equal footing with the accepted theory.
"They predicted the position of Neptune within one degree. The chances of doing that by accident are at best 1 in 360."
-
So, Gravity could be caused by some kind of boson particle, or it could be caused by time/space dilation, or it could be caused by gravitrons. Yeah, it sounds like you have it all figured out. ::)
Anyway, I am just saying that bendy light theory is still a young theory and we do not yet have all of the answers. That does not mean that it is wrong.
-
So, Gravity could be caused by some kind of boson particle, or it could be caused by time/space dilation, or it could be caused by gravitrons. Yeah, it sounds like you have it all figured out. ::)
Anyway, I am just saying that bendy light theory is still a young theory and we do not yet have all of the answers. That does not mean that it is wrong.
I never claimed it was all worked out. Gravitons and spacetime curvature aren't mutually exclusive theories necessarily. I don't know about boson - you mean the Higgs boson, responsible for mass? Looks like that's been more or less confirmed. There's still no quantum theory of gravity that ties quantum theory and relativity together, but so what? Relativity and Quantum Electrodynamics still work fine on their own. String theory and its progenitors seem to be making some headway into uniting them, but who knows.
My point is, there is no bendy light theory as such. It's an untested hypothesis, with one equation that I know of which didn't achieve much success at all. If anyone besides Parsifal is even pursuing it (if he even still is) I'm not aware of it.
Again, you have no reason to put Gravity in the same ballpark as Bendy Light, there's just no comparison. That there's a single force responsible for things falling and the motion of the planets, there's no doubt. The only question is what is the nature of that force and how does it actually work.
-
So, Gravity could be caused by some kind of boson particle, or it could be caused by time/space dilation, or it could be caused by gravitrons. Yeah, it sounds like you have it all figured out. ::)
Anyway, I am just saying that bendy light theory is still a young theory and we do not yet have all of the answers. That does not mean that it is wrong.
So you mock a theory that is considerably more developed than the one you support, and then you ask us for clemency on your ramshackle little supposition? How about you cats do some work on your hypothesis and come back when you can play in the big sandbox with the grown up scientists?
P.S. The hypothetical boson for gravity is the graviton, this is a gravitron...
(http://www.dweebist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/gravitron.png)
-
I never claimed it was all worked out.
Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.
-
So you mock a theory that is considerably more developed than the one you support, and then you ask us for clemency on your ramshackle little supposition? How about you cats do some work on your hypothesis and come back when you can play in the big sandbox with the grown up scientists?
P.S. The hypothetical boson for gravity is the graviton, this is a gravitron...
(http://www.dweebist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/gravitron.png)
Magic works perfectly well for your theory, but when we use real world observable data to postulate a theory, you just can't stand it. Got it.
-
So you mock a theory that is considerably more developed than the one you support, and then you ask us for clemency on your ramshackle little supposition? How about you cats do some work on your hypothesis and come back when you can play in the big sandbox with the grown up scientists?
P.S. The hypothetical boson for gravity is the graviton, this is a gravitron...
(http://www.dweebist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/gravitron.png)
Magic works perfectly well for your theory, but when we use real world observable data to postulate a theory, you just can't stand it. Got it.
You guys use magic like Creationists use the god of the gaps argument. It's idiotic. You do not observe light bending. You observe light behaving as it should on a RE. You try to get around this by invoking a hypothesis that there is no observable data to support. Huge difference.
-
I never claimed it was all worked out.
Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.
If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.
-
You guys use magic like Creationists use the god of the gaps argument. It's idiotic. You do not observe light bending. You observe light behaving as it should on a RE. You try to get around this by invoking a hypothesis that there is no observable data to support. Huge difference.
Mass + Magic = Gravity.
We may not observe light "bending", (although this is not technically true), but we can see the effects of it and work backwards in a sound manner.
-
I never claimed it was all worked out.
Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.
If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.
Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing. When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories. Until then, keep an open mind, please.
-
You guys use magic like Creationists use the god of the gaps argument. It's idiotic. You do not observe light bending. You observe light behaving as it should on a RE. You try to get around this by invoking a hypothesis that there is no observable data to support. Huge difference.
Mass + Magic = Gravity.
We may not observe light "bending", (although this is not technically true), but we can see the effects of it and work backwards in a sound manner.
It is technically true that Electromagnetic Acceleration has never been observed. All we see is light propagating in waves in a cone. We only see light bend when it goes through a refractive medium. The Bendy Light that you are referring to is utterly uncorroborated. It is an effect that you require to make sense of the fact that the Earth's surface behaves as if it is curved. It may be right, but the work is not there to be able to claim anything remotely like that. String "Theory" has been worked on for decades by thousands of people and does not make any claims that it reflects the world yet, why should this threadbare assembly of knowledge be able to do so?
Your little equation there is what I was referring to when speaking about the God of the Gaps. Although the mechanism itself has not been observed, we have a full understanding of its workings on all levels except the quantum. Your pathetic stab does nothing to change that. Again, when EA has done anything remotely close to predicting the position of a hitherto undiscovered planet, or describe accurately and obsevably the behavior of binary star systems, or predictedthat light bends around stars, you ring up any physics department in the world, and present your evidence. Until then, I cannot let any claim to truth of Bendy Light go unchallenged.
-
I never claimed it was all worked out.
Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.
If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.
Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing. When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories. Until then, keep an open mind, please.
"One little detail"? No evidence and no equation that can model anything to do with the real world. These are big problems. I will not speak for Shmeggley, but I have asked to see more of the detail of the hypothesis, and have never been shown -anything-. I would honestly love to see more, but I cannot help but think there is no more to be seen. Please prove me wrong. I would be honored if you did.
-
Your little equation there is what I was referring to when speaking about the God of the Gaps. Although the mechanism itself has not been observed, we have a full understanding of its workings on all levels except the quantum. Your pathetic stab does nothing to change that. Again, when EA has done anything remotely close to predicting the position of a hitherto undiscovered planet, or describe accurately and obsevably the behavior of binary star systems, or predictedthat light bends around stars, you ring up any physics department in the world, and present your evidence. Until then, I cannot let any claim to truth of Bendy Light go unchallenged.
Yes, that is what I mean. Just because you can not fill in all of the gaps, it does not mean that a theory is false.
-
I never claimed it was all worked out.
Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.
If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.
Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing. When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories. Until then, keep an open mind, please.
"One little detail"? No evidence and no equation that can model anything to do with the real world. These are big problems. I will not speak for Shmeggley, but I have asked to see more of the detail of the hypothesis, and have never been shown -anything-. I would honestly love to see more, but I cannot help but think there is no more to be seen. Please prove me wrong. I would be honored if you did.
Observed evidence is evidence, even if it is not conclusive.
-
I never claimed it was all worked out.
Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.
If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.
Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing. When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories. Until then, keep an open mind, please.
What "little details" about gravity are you missing?
As far as demanding details for bendy light, I'd like to see ANY detail at all. So far there just is no theory at all, just a hypothesis, as I have said several times already. Note that the hypothesis is only necessary when you assume a flat Earth in the first place.
-
I never claimed it was all worked out.
Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.
If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.
Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing. When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories. Until then, keep an open mind, please.
What "little details" about gravity are you missing?
As far as demanding details for bendy light, I'd like to see ANY detail at all. So far there just is no theory at all, just a hypothesis, as I have said several times already. Note that the hypothesis is only necessary when you assume a flat Earth in the first place.
Ok... What does this prove? Bendy Light is a hypothesis being worked on.
-
Your little equation there is what I was referring to when speaking about the God of the Gaps. Although the mechanism itself has not been observed, we have a full understanding of its workings on all levels except the quantum. Your pathetic stab does nothing to change that. Again, when EA has done anything remotely close to predicting the position of a hitherto undiscovered planet, or describe accurately and obsevably the behavior of binary star systems, or predictedthat light bends around stars, you ring up any physics department in the world, and present your evidence. Until then, I cannot let any claim to truth of Bendy Light go unchallenged.
Yes, that is what I mean. Just because you can not fill in all of the gaps, it does not mean that a theory is false.
You say that just because we cannot fill in the gaps does not mean the theory is false. But just before that you deride gravity for having gaps. Make up your mind man.
I have never said Bendy Light is true. I think using it as an explanation of anything is incredibly dishonest. There is no observable evidence of bendy light, only an empty hole in the axiom that precedes it (the Earth is flat). Observing light behaving as you would expect on a RE does not qualify as an observation of bendy light for reasons I hope I do not have to elaborate upon. Using an untested hypothesis as a description of reality is putting the cart before the horse. Do the work and then make your claims.
-
I never claimed it was all worked out.
Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.
If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.
Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing. When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories. Until then, keep an open mind, please.
What "little details" about gravity are you missing?
As far as demanding details for bendy light, I'd like to see ANY detail at all. So far there just is no theory at all, just a hypothesis, as I have said several times already. Note that the hypothesis is only necessary when you assume a flat Earth in the first place.
Ok... What does this prove? Bendy Light is a hypothesis being worked on.
My point is not to prove one theory over another. My point is there is no bendy light theory, and jroa's claim that gravity is just as incomplete is false.
-
I never claimed it was all worked out.
Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.
If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.
Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing. When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories. Until then, keep an open mind, please.
What "little details" about gravity are you missing?
As far as demanding details for bendy light, I'd like to see ANY detail at all. So far there just is no theory at all, just a hypothesis, as I have said several times already. Note that the hypothesis is only necessary when you assume a flat Earth in the first place.
Ok... What does this prove? Bendy Light is a hypothesis being worked on.
My point is not to prove one theory over another. My point is there is no bendy light theory, and jroa's claim that gravity is just as incomplete is false.
1. Correct
2. Prove this claim
-
I never claimed it was all worked out.
Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.
If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.
Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing. When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories. Until then, keep an open mind, please.
What "little details" about gravity are you missing?
As far as demanding details for bendy light, I'd like to see ANY detail at all. So far there just is no theory at all, just a hypothesis, as I have said several times already. Note that the hypothesis is only necessary when you assume a flat Earth in the first place.
Ok... What does this prove? Bendy Light is a hypothesis being worked on.
A hypothesis being worked on cannot make the same claims that a testable and full theory can, yet it is common at the FES to compare gravity to Bendy Light or UA in regards to how fleshed out it is. They are not comparable in that regard.
-
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator)
What was that you were saying? That we have no details or something?
-
I never claimed it was all worked out.
Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.
If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.
Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing. When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories. Until then, keep an open mind, please.
What "little details" about gravity are you missing?
As far as demanding details for bendy light, I'd like to see ANY detail at all. So far there just is no theory at all, just a hypothesis, as I have said several times already. Note that the hypothesis is only necessary when you assume a flat Earth in the first place.
Ok... What does this prove? Bendy Light is a hypothesis being worked on.
A hypothesis being worked on cannot make the same claims that a testable and full theory can, yet it is common at the FES to compare gravity to Bendy Light or UA in regards to how fleshed out it is. They are not comparable in that regard.
I never said that a hypothesis was comparable to a theory. I simply asked what does what he said prove.
-
This looks like a good time to plug my own poor neglected thread, which I hope can explain why two "wrong" theories aren't necessarily equivalent.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58479.0.html#.UY2XjWS9Kc0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58479.0.html#.UY2XjWS9Kc0)
Here's the gist of it:
"... when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
-
I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain. If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.
-
You also can't neglect the fact that gravity is more devleoped because their are more people working on it AND it is very old - 1500s AD
Bendy light has very few people working on it AND it is fairly new - 5 or 10 years?
-
I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain. If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.
This is a 9 year old website. I am pretty sure after 9 years someone has explained Bendy Light. Just look around a little and you will find stuff.
-
I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain. If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.
This is a 9 year old website. I am pretty sure after 9 years someone has explained Bendy Light. Just look around a little and you will find stuff.
Actually, I was here when bendy light theory was proposed about 5 years or so ago and in all that time I still haven't seen a satisfactory reason for it to exist.
-
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator)
What was that you were saying? That we have no details or something?
Parsifal created this equation and he admits that the Bishop's constant has an unknown value. He also admitted to not really recalling how he derived it. It also has no basis in observation. So yeah, you have no details.
-
I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain. If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.
We don't need you to remind us of your permanoob status. I don't demand answers from Globularists. Why do you make demands on us?
-
I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain. If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.
We don't need you to remind us of your permanoob status. I don't demand answers from Globularists. Why do you make demands on us?
May I remind you Jroa that you promised to come with answers to the fundamental errors I showed you? So far I have not seen any answers. Sometimes...yes, there were some sort of answers, but went unexplained... Tausumi (!). Then answers which should support the FET, but then are under development and the tenor is "We don't yet know exactly how it is suppose to work, but...it has to be like that!" Is that the sort of "open-minded" debate there should be?
-
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator)
What was that you were saying? That we have no details or something?
Parsifal created this equation and he admits that the Bishop's constant has an unknown value. He also admitted to not really recalling how he derived it. It also has no basis in observation. So yeah, you have no details.
Looks like a detail to me. May not be correct, may be correct, but it is still a detail.
-
I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain. If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.
We don't need you to remind us of your permanoob status. I don't demand answers from Globularists. Why do you make demands on us?
May I remind you Jroa that you promised to come with answers to the fundamental errors I showed you? So far I have not seen any answers. Sometimes...yes, there were some sort of answers, but went unexplained... Tausumi (!). Then answers which should support the FET, but then are under development and the tenor is "We don't yet know exactly how it is suppose to work, but...it has to be like that!" Is that the sort of "open-minded" debate there should be?
A lot of our ideas and theories are only a few years old - gravity, for example, is a 400 year old theory. Bendy Light is 5 years old. Of course our ideas and theories are underdeveloped and of course we don't know exactly how they work yet.
-
I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain. If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.
We don't need you to remind us of your permanoob status. I don't demand answers from Globularists. Why do you make demands on us?
May I remind you Jroa that you promised to come with answers to the fundamental errors I showed you? So far I have not seen any answers. Sometimes...yes, there were some sort of answers, but went unexplained... Tausumi (!). Then answers which should support the FET, but then are under development and the tenor is "We don't yet know exactly how it is suppose to work, but...it has to be like that!" Is that the sort of "open-minded" debate there should be?
I gave you answers. How many answers do you want?
-
I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain. If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.
We don't need you to remind us of your permanoob status. I don't demand answers from Globularists. Why do you make demands on us?
I didn't make any demands, I made a suggestion.
-
I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain. If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.
We don't need you to remind us of your permanoob status. I don't demand answers from Globularists. Why do you make demands on us?
May I remind you Jroa that you promised to come with answers to the fundamental errors I showed you? So far I have not seen any answers. Sometimes...yes, there were some sort of answers, but went unexplained... Tausumi (!). Then answers which should support the FET, but then are under development and the tenor is "We don't yet know exactly how it is suppose to work, but...it has to be like that!" Is that the sort of "open-minded" debate there should be?
I gave you answers. How many answers do you want?
Answers which actually have been proven to be true. Not some answers you don't yet know of how it works, or answers which contradict real life observations. Answers which have been proven.
-
I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain. If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.
We don't need you to remind us of your permanoob status. I don't demand answers from Globularists. Why do you make demands on us?
May I remind you Jroa that you promised to come with answers to the fundamental errors I showed you? So far I have not seen any answers. Sometimes...yes, there were some sort of answers, but went unexplained... Tausumi (!). Then answers which should support the FET, but then are under development and the tenor is "We don't yet know exactly how it is suppose to work, but...it has to be like that!" Is that the sort of "open-minded" debate there should be?
I gave you answers. How many answers do you want?
Answers which actually have been proven to be true. Not some answers you don't yet know of how it works, or answers which contradict real life observations. Answers which have been proven.
Well, I don't know if we have any. That doesn't really mean anything though, it just means we don't have any answers yet. We have ideas and such, and we are working on them.
-
Well, I don't know if we have any. That doesn't really mean anything though, it just means we don't have any answers yet. We have ideas and such, and we are working on them.
So the spherical earth is actually the only true answer? Not the permanent answer, but the most plausible, given all the real life observations and the fact that it provides answers for all the questions so far. Can we agree on that?
-
Well, I don't know if we have any. That doesn't really mean anything though, it just means we don't have any answers yet. We have ideas and such, and we are working on them.
So the spherical earth is actually the only true answer? Not the permanent answer, but the most plausible, given all the real life observations and the fact that it provides answers for all the questions so far. Can we agree on that?
In what way did you derive that from my answer? The round earth doesn't have a ton of answers. Gravity- theory. etc.
You do have more than us, but that doesn't make it more plausible.
-
Well, I don't know if we have any. That doesn't really mean anything though, it just means we don't have any answers yet. We have ideas and such, and we are working on them.
So the spherical earth is actually the only true answer? Not the permanent answer, but the most plausible, given all the real life observations and the fact that it provides answers for all the questions so far. Can we agree on that?
In what way did you derive that from my answer? The round earth doesn't have a ton of answers. Gravity- theory. etc.
You do have more than us, but that doesn't make it more plausible.
Seems like it is all sorted out in the RET, with no contradictions thus far.
What way I derive that from your answer?
In court:
Prosecutor (RET): You are guilty (The earth is round)
Defense (FET): No I am innocent (No, the earth is flat)
Prosecutor (RET): I have all the evidence here, explain yourself (Here are all sorts of problems with the FET, explain it please)
Defense (FET): I can't (I can't)
Prosecutor (RET): Judge, based on all of the evidence the suspect is guilty (Look, based on all the evidence the earth is round).
Judge: Suspect is found to be guilty (Earth is found to be round).
-
Well, I don't know if we have any. That doesn't really mean anything though, it just means we don't have any answers yet. We have ideas and such, and we are working on them.
So the spherical earth is actually the only true answer? Not the permanent answer, but the most plausible, given all the real life observations and the fact that it provides answers for all the questions so far. Can we agree on that?
In what way did you derive that from my answer? The round earth doesn't have a ton of answers. Gravity- theory. etc.
You do have more than us, but that doesn't make it more plausible.
Seems like it is all sorted out in the RET, with no contradictions thus far.
What way I derive that from your answer?
In court:
Prosecutor (RET): You are guilty (The earth is round)
Defense (FET): No I am innocent (No, the earth is flat)
Prosecutor (RET): I have all the evidence here, explain yourself (Here are all sorts of problems with the FET, explain it please)
Defense (FET): I can't (I can't)
Prosecutor (RET): Judge, based on all of the evidence the suspect is guilty (Look, based on all the evidence the earth is round).
Judge: Suspect is found to be guilty (Earth is found to be round).
Based on what they know, the earth is round. However, later knowledge proves FE right, and the judgement is overturned.
-
Based on what they know, the earth is round. However, later knowledge proves FE right, and the judgement is overturned.
Perhaps, but the fundamental errors need to be explained, otherwise the FET has no chance of succeeding.
-
Based on what they know, the earth is round. However, later knowledge proves FE right, and the judgement is overturned.
Perhaps, but the fundamental errors need to be explained, otherwise the FET has no chance of succeeding.
This is true in a court system. But I still believe Flat Earth and will continue to help the theory and give us more evidence and details to work with.
-
This is true in a court system. But I still believe Flat Earth and will continue to help the theory and give us more evidence and details to work with.
Suit yourself. I will wait for you to publish your research results, so it can get peer-reviewed and accepted globally. Untill then, the round earth is for me indefinitely proved.
-
This is true in a court system. But I still believe Flat Earth and will continue to help the theory and give us more evidence and details to work with.
Suit yourself. I will wait for you to publish your research results, so it can get peer-reviewed and accepted globally. Untill then, the round earth is for me indefinitely proved.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports the FET. You do not care to accept any of it, and that is fine. Don't claim the evidence is not there, though.
-
This is true in a court system. But I still believe Flat Earth and will continue to help the theory and give us more evidence and details to work with.
Suit yourself. I will wait for you to publish your research results, so it can get peer-reviewed and accepted globally. Untill then, the round earth is for me indefinitely proved.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports the FET. You do not care to accept any of it, and that is fine. Don't claim the evidence is not there, though.
I asked you for it, but not a single evidence was given...just to show you...give me one piece of the allegded evidence and I will disproof it or show where the problem is.
-
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports the FET.
What evidence? I still haven't seen anything conclusive, just a lot of ambiguity that gets passed off as proof, despite the fact it tells us nothing.
-
After really observing in depth all of the posting on this topic, I have come to a very quick conclusion regarding the aetheric wind theory as well as what bendy light explains. There is a book that NASA had approved of back in the 90's. It runs by the name of The Scole Reports. This book proves life after death through Catholic mediumship as well as the existence of a substance or energy called ether. The existence of this substance stands as the perfect segue to the reality of God and spirits, as well as FE science.
The tendency of light bending due to gravity would behave in this particular way: The spherical earth over long distances would appear flat, and the flat earth would appear curved and spherical. We have to assume that the particles of light can only be bent once as it approaches the observing eye and hits the cones and rods of the retina for analysis... This explains some of the satellite phenomena that is observed. It appears curved because of malleable light beams. Thus, the earth stands a flat surface. This applies to long distance images over entire continents. The angle of bending on the photographs needs to be calculated completely. There might not be enough bend to account for the 24,901 mile circumference of an assumed spherical earth. I might attach some pictures later on that explain the particular way that we can expect light to bend.
-
The name of the book that I bought was "The Scole Experiments" by Jane and Grant Solomon. I had to be more specific...
-
The name of the book that I bought was "The Scole Experiments" by Jane and Grant Solomon. I had to be more specific...
??? What does life after death have to do with the shape of the earth?
-
It has everything to do with the topic. Ether's existence has been validated. From this important piece of info, we can deduce that the earth most certainly is a vast, irregular plane... The seasons can be proven to exist as well as every contrived notion on a flat earth. It just takes deep soul searching and introspection with scientific data.